Absolute accuracy in reporting of events and thoughts I guess would be fact.
Truth would be accuracy in events and thoughts through the view of the person telling the truth so it's factual as far as the person knows.
So people who are wrong can be truthful but unaware or have conflicting stories.
And then once you go into things without specific answers it becomes opinion which can never be true.

This is one of those grey areas that I'm not too sure on. I believe Truth is in the eyes of the beholder, that it is something different between every person. About it being subjective, objective, absolute or anything like that is true and yet it is not. I am a firm believer that Truth is something that is caught in all that is and all that is not.

Interesting thread. I see a lot of people who kind of see that truth might be subjective in some strong way which should make sense to everyone.

I generally ascribe to the correspondence theory myself. A truth is a statement that reflects the way the world is. It does lead one to ask the question, if a "truth" is a statement that I make, what makes that statement "objective"? Isn't every statement I make going to be the result of my own personal viewpoint and perception of the world? What if my eyes play tricks on me?

I have read that physics, we want equations or laws that take the same mathematical form regardless of the units one use (and I believe regardless of the frame of reference you choose). I wonder if there's an analogy to be made there between how physicists view objectivity and how we might in a thread like this.

Fact though is usually concrete, something the majority agree to. Or better put, it is undeniable because it is there before everyone.

Truth is the personal answer, it is when you believe it is fact when there isn't always fact to prove it. Truth is for the individual to believe because if they do not believe themselves, it can't begin to be fact.

truth as an idea is an absolute shared between all of us and easily understood, the problem is that in determining truth, everything is subjective, so essentially truth is subjective... simple answer over

The truth is reality, science is the looking glass through which we can see the truth without our subjectiveness.
The Truth is Metrics and Laws.

science is an illusion, not so much that science is a lie- as that may have sounded- but rather that reality is subjective and illusory, thus the study of such illusions will produce nothing but false metrics and laws

If you think reality is subjective then of course you think science is an illusion. Wrong of course, since reality is neither subjective nor objective it is the state of the universe despite what its inhabitants are able to observe. Our observations are subject to limitations, science of course being the key to solve those limitations. This is why we may examine and examine again many of the same theories, because it is with repetitive examinations you can help identify and eliminate errors in observations.

Justine, most people who support subjective reality (like myself) go to philosophy to support it, meaning it supersedes science, and actually discusses the assumptions science itself makes. So really, it's not possible to counter the arguments using science itself.

It's obvious not many people can discern fact from truth, since they are closely related. The difference between truth and fact is... truth is more subjective, and almost always so. Truth is something held to be true by an individual, does not need any basis in reality or fact, e.g. a devout Christian believing in the existence of God, Heaven and Hell, etc. Whereas fact is objective and will be apparent in reality regardless of belief or acceptance; however, not all facts are universal truths, as facts can and do change. You should remember that these terms should not be used interchangeably.

Justine, most people who support subjective reality (like myself) go to philosophy to support it, meaning it supersedes science, and actually discusses the assumptions science itself makes. So really, it's not possible to counter the arguments using science itself.

To me the definition of subjective reality only defines a particular perspective of reality, not what reality is. That's what I was saying, but I see that a subjective reality perspective defines reality itself differently, and one who embraces a solid, objective reality has no way to disprove the subjective definition of reality. Personally I'd rather live a reality that we are able to break apart by science than one in which science can deceive us, or has no reliability in explaining things which deceive our initial observations. Hence the definition of reality is that it is neither subjective nor objective, since those are merely perception types that depend on human observation.

Justine, most people who support subjective reality (like myself) go to philosophy to support it, meaning it supersedes science, and actually discusses the assumptions science itself makes. So really, it's not possible to counter the arguments using science itself.

To me the definition of subjective reality only defines a particular perspective of reality, not what reality is. That's what I was saying, but I see that a subjective reality perspective defines reality itself differently, and one who embraces a solid, objective reality has no way to disprove the subjective definition of reality. Personally I'd rather live a reality that we are able to break apart by science than one in which science can deceive us, or has no reliability in explaining things which deceive our initial observations. Hence the definition of reality is that it is neither subjective nor objective, since those are merely perception types that depend on human observation.

Justine, most people who support subjective reality (like myself) go to philosophy to support it, meaning it supersedes science, and actually discusses the assumptions science itself makes. So really, it's not possible to counter the arguments using science itself.

To me the definition of subjective reality only defines a particular perspective of reality, not what reality is. That's what I was saying, but I see that a subjective reality perspective defines reality itself differently, and one who embraces a solid, objective reality has no way to disprove the subjective definition of reality.

That is definitely possible. Reality could exist solidly, and we simply wouldn't be able to prove that it is what we see. We just can't tell for sure =).

Personally I'd rather live a reality that we are able to break apart by science than one in which science can deceive us, or has no reliability in explaining things which deceive our initial observations.

And that is your choice. The thing is, we can't assert that on other people. They have their own choices to make too. There isn't an undeniably 'right' answer, persay, at least in my opinion. There is simply the one we choose.